Interested!

yes, so annoying

Stimulus: Henry saying dance is too complicated a way for honey bees to communicate food location - especially given they can just use scent - so dance must be for something else. Winifred saying not necessarily - could be that both are used.

A) INCORRECT

B) INCORRECT - tricky for me but Henry is not committing to 1 or multiple ways - just saying dance too complicated. Winifred similarly not committing.

C) CORRECT - Henry outright saying not dance to communicate, Winifred very slyly implying yes dance to communicate.

D) INCORRECT

E) INCORRECT

P: Students bored by current way history is taught - dates/statistics

C: Best way is most time on figures, very little time on dates/statistics

-------------------

A) If one should not avoid boring students, then you can't say best way is X based on it being less boring

B) If incompatible with teaching goals to spend little time on dates/statistics, you can't say that that's the best way

C) CORRECT - ok, so statistics/dates are a necessary condition for figures - that's fine since the best way allows for some statistics/dates

D) If figures not compatible with teaching goals, can't say it's the best way

E) If students would be more bored with new figures method, can't say it's best way with premise that they are originally bored

CTX: Country X deserves retribution for its protectionism

P: We have agriculture demand though

C: We should sell agricultural equipment to Country X anyway

A) Maybe it's the other way around, who cares.

B) Ok maybe being able to keep products around is MORE important than being able to enter international markets - not sure what this does to our argument. In this case argument is to keep products around BY ENTERING international markets.

C) This was tricky. If negated, then you get that you should sometimes jeopardize own country's interests in pursuit of punishing a protectionist nation. That is consistent with one time not jeopardizing own country's interests in pursuit of punishing a protectionist nation.

D) Wrong direction, plus the most is not necessary.

E) CORRECT - argument makes the assumption you should balance economic justice with own interests in the first place. if negated, and should not balance, then can't conclude that despite country X deserving retribution you should trade with them for your own interests.

P: Easier to evoke sympathy for endangered larger mammals than smaller organisms

C: Campaigns on endangered species unlikely to effect change on most important issues

Note to self: by saying it's easier to invoke sympathy for endangered larger mammals and than other microorganisms and then saying as a result the campaign on endangered species is unlikely to do much to effect change on most important issues, the argument is subtly implying that endangered larger mammals are NOT among the most important issues

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A) CORRECT - if most important environmental issues involve larger mammal endangered species, then your premise that it's easier to evoke sympathy for larger mammals than other organisms doesn't do much anymore to imply conclusion that campaigns unlikely to effect change - this thing that people DO have sympathy for according to author IS the most important issue!

B) INCORRECT

C) INCORRECT

D) INCORRECT - maybe you don't ignore an issue that you don't sympathize with (e.g. small microorganism); that doesn't mean you feel sympathy or do anything about it. Doesn't weaken the argument that feeling less sympathy means you won't do anything to effect change.

E) INCORRECT

C) I thought this was right but then realized paying attention does not have much objective bearing. Say people pay the same amount or more attention to the way their own language sounds - that does not wreck the argument that language as words is an illusion.

E) Correct - if native speakers' perception was more accurate, then you can't say based on the non-native perception of a language that the native perception is wrong

I did not get the part about the competing promises - went right over my head...

Argument

P: Breaking promises is bad

P: In talking one makes the implicit promise to tell truth

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

C: You should tell teacher if Jeanne is really well even though you promised Jeanne you would not

There are two competing promises, and in saying you should keep the implicit promise at the expense of the explicit promise, you are saying that at least in one case (sometimes) an explicit promise is less important than an implicit one - hence (D) is correct.

INCORRECT CHOICES:

A) Maybe only 49% of people tell the truth always, or maybe 0% - doesn't wreck the argument that because wrong to break promises, and lying = breaking implicit promise, that therefore the person in question should break the explicit over implicit promises.

B) Maybe it's never better to act in a friend's best interests than to keep promises to them - we're not really dealing with any friend's best interests here so irrelevant.

C) Maybe breaking a promise does not lead to worse consequences than does telling a lie - we don't really care about consequences though here.

E) Maybe someone should sometimes break a promise. That doesn't weaken the case that the person in question should break the explicit promise over the implicit one.

A) Could be False - you could mine more in 1991. Say you mined 70 and consumed 20 to get to 50 in end of 1990. Then you mine 100 and use 150 ending with 0. You mined more in 1991 and still stayed true to the question stem.

B) Must be true. To get from 1990 to 1991, you start with the amount of coal Dec 31, 1990 (e.g. 50) and end with the amount of coal Dec 31, 1991 which is lower (e.g. 10). Along the way, you mine (add) and you consume (subtract) coal from the stockpile. Ultimately though your additions and subtractions will take you from 50 (or any higher number than in 1991) to 10 (or any lower number than in 1990). Ultimately, you need a net negative to get from higher number 50 to lower number 10. Only way to do this is to consume (-) more than mine (+) throughout 1991.

C) Could be false - you could consume more coal in 1991. Start with 0, mine 100, and consume 50 to end with 50 in 1990. Then mine 100 and consume 120, landing you at 30. Consumed more in 1991 and stayed true to question stem.

D) Could be false - you could consume more coal in 1990. Start with 0, mine 100, and consume 50 to end with 50 in 1990. Then mine 10 and consume 20 to end with 40. Consumed more in 1990 and stayed true to question stem.

E) Could be false - could consume less coal in the first half of 1991 than in the first half of 1990. Start with 0 coal, consume 2 in first half, 98 in second half while mine 200 full year to end with 100. Then in 1991, consume 0 in first half, 10 in second half, while mine 0 full year to end with 90. Stays true to question stem.

Stimulus Structure: Everyone believes X is false, one non-author person launches an attack on X, author says attack on X is bad, author concludes X is more plausible than thought

A) Incorrect - No instance of a non-author person affirming the commonly held view

B) Incorrect - The instance of a non-author person dealing with the commonly held view is them denying, not affirming it

C) Correct - Commonly held view A not as good as T, engineer affirms with argument pertaining to pressure, author says that argument misunderstands pressure, therefore that aluminum as good might make more sense than people think

D) Incorrect - no non-author person is affirming the claim

E) Incorrect - no non-author person is affirming the claim

Stimulus Structure:

X→Y

Therefore

X only means Y (i.e. can't have X→Z or X→B)

AND

Though perhaps X is the case now, that holds no bearing for whether X will be the case in the future.

A) Correct. Cold → Observe Cold Symptoms, therefore Cold only means Observed Cold Symptoms (can't imply observed COVID symptoms, or observed a giant pimple, etc.)

B) Incorrect. No conditional relationship in premise.

C) Incorrect. No conclusion element that because X→Y X only implies Y

D) Incorrect. No conditional relationship in premise e.g. cold requires X.

E) Incorrect. No element in conclusion that because X→Y X only implies Y

Stimulus structure: A causes B and B, therefore A

A) Incorrect - They eliminated the cause, not the effect, in the AC

B) Incorrect - no negation of effect

C) Incorrect - no cause/effect relationship even introduced

D) Correct - Enough to Do causes complaints and complaints, therefore filling time productively aka Enough to Do

E) Incorrect - There is no B in the premises

PREM: two studies with different methods examining same thing yield different results

CONCLUSION: different results due to different methods

MY THOUGHT: hmm, but are different methods sufficient to yield different results? Couldn't you have different methods and have the same results?

A) irrelevant

B) irrelevant

C) we don't know that only one study has been properly conducted

D) RIGHT - different methods can yield same results, demonstrating the weakness in the conclusion that different methods are sufficient to explain the different results

E) irrelevant

#help I read "context-dependent" properties to refer back to aesthetically relevant property. In which case AC C - "aesthetically relevant properties other than representation can determine whether an object is a work of art" does not make sense because premise is referring to all aesthetically relevant properties. Can someone explain why "context-dependent" is referential to "representational" and NOT to "aesthetically relevant"? Not adding up for me.